EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3707
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35162 Posts
| ||
|
StasisField
United States1086 Posts
On July 01 2022 08:07 Gorsameth wrote: You in theory might be able to do that with stuff like EPA, but for the abortion stuff there is nothing for Biden to ignore. The problem is the states are doing stuff, and Biden can't stop them from prosecuting people having or helping with abortions. Yeah I recognize this doesn't address everything happening right now but it's a start. There's rarely a solution that fixes everything | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23469 Posts
On July 01 2022 10:53 Gahlo wrote: I'm with... I think it was Plasmid? I don't see democracy going past 2025 on our current trajectory. Depends on if one means functionally or officially. I'd argue that US Democracy is already largely an illusion steeped in propaganda, but as far as US democracy as it's generally known it'll be considered "a flawed work in progress" by most for long after it's current form is hollowed out (like 2028 at the earliest). If Democrats lose in 2022 and 2024 they aren't going to be like "well we told you, democracy is dead now" even if Trump declares himself God-King. They'll still be pitching people to donate to their campaigns and vote harder and there will still be people buying into it. | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
On July 01 2022 10:53 Gahlo wrote: I'm with... I think it was Plasmid? I don't see democracy going past 2025 on our current trajectory. Shit at this point I don't think it'll survive past next summer if the SC rules that the state legislatures can do whatever they want for elections. Moore v Harper is going to be the case that will sunset America | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On July 01 2022 11:53 plasmidghost wrote: Shit at this point I don't think it'll survive past next summer if the SC rules that the state legislatures can do whatever they want for elections. Moore v Harper is going to be the case that will sunset America I think such a ruling having that effect would require there to be no crisis of faith in the Supreme Court as a good faith actor at all, when it's looking kind of inevitable from where I'm sitting. Having an unpopular and undemocratic judicial body rattling off one deeply unpopular ruling after another and sinking freedoms left and right to enact the agenda of a radical minority is eroding people's trust in it as an institution. And the court only has as much legitimacy as people give it. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On July 01 2022 12:56 NewSunshine wrote: I think such a ruling having that effect would require there to be no crisis of faith in the Supreme Court as a good faith actor at all, when it's looking kind of inevitable from where I'm sitting. Having an unpopular and undemocratic judicial body rattling off one deeply unpopular ruling after another and sinking freedoms left and right to enact the agenda of a radical minority is eroding people's trust in it as an institution. And the court only has as much legitimacy as people give it. Yeah since it has no actual power, the only power it has is essentially popularity. All Biden needs to do is say “companies can go ahead and pretend the Supreme Court decides this and see what happens” and it’ll be like the ruling never happened. Biden can go scorched earth and make lives for companies violating the EPA’s policies miserable. The only power codified into the Supreme Court is prestige. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On July 01 2022 12:56 NewSunshine wrote: I think such a ruling having that effect would require there to be no crisis of faith in the Supreme Court as a good faith actor at all, when it's looking kind of inevitable from where I'm sitting. Having an unpopular and undemocratic judicial body rattling off one deeply unpopular ruling after another and sinking freedoms left and right to enact the agenda of a radical minority is eroding people's trust in it as an institution. And the court only has as much legitimacy as people give it. On policy I think most of these developments are shitty but I honestly find the argument confused that the court is acting undemocratically. Most of these recent decisions seem to follow the logic of returning powers back to state legislatives and that is if anything a democratic move. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10809 Posts
On July 01 2022 06:59 plasmidghost wrote: There absolutely is, but the sad part is, they don't care. The states are knowingly passing unconstitutional laws and the Supreme Court ruled that it's allowed when they let SB8 stand. Maybe your constitution is just long past its time and it finally shows. | ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2605 Posts
Maybe this is the wrong way to run a country, but this is how it is. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On July 01 2022 14:39 Nyxisto wrote: On policy I think most of these developments are shitty but I honestly find the argument confused that the court is acting undemocratically. Most of these recent decisions seem to follow the logic of returning powers back to state legislatives and that is if anything a democratic move. "Returning an issue to the states" when you know both that several states will absolutely outlaw that particular right, and that losing the right is something very few people support, doesn't look very democratic to me. It's a handful of people appointed by someone who lost a popular vote, handing an unpopular power to people who would force that outcome on everyone. Hell, several states banned abortion automatically because of trigger laws that have been in place for decades! They didn't flood your house, they just took the ceiling away right as the hurricane arrived. It's the main mechanism by which the Right rationalizes stripping women's rights. They attempt to reframe it as a problem with procedure and process, that it's inappropriate for the right to abortion to be granted through legal precedent rather than law. But then you don't see them moving to codify abortion rights. They know what they're doing. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4356 Posts
https://news.yahoo.com/biden-says-high-gas-prices-145844406.html President Joe Biden said there may be no end in sight for high gas prices in the US until Russia's invasion of Ukraine is thwarted. When asked how long American drivers should expect to deal with high fuel prices, Biden told reporters "as long as it takes, so Russia cannot in fact defeat Ukraine and move beyond Ukraine." He continued, "this is a critical, critical position for the world." Biden's approval rating has sharply fallen this year with much of the decline attributable to voters anxious about the spike in gas prices. Rising inflation is eating into paychecks when Americans go shopping at the grocery store or pay rent. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9137 Posts
On July 01 2022 20:52 NewSunshine wrote: "Returning an issue to the states" when you know both that several states will absolutely outlaw that particular right, and that losing the right is something very few people support, doesn't look very democratic to me. It's a handful of people appointed by someone who lost a popular vote, handing an unpopular power to people who would force that outcome on everyone. Hell, several states banned abortion automatically because of trigger laws that have been in place for decades! They didn't flood your house, they just took the ceiling away right as the hurricane arrived. It's the main mechanism by which the Right rationalizes stripping women's rights. They attempt to reframe it as a problem with procedure and process, that it's inappropriate for the right to abortion to be granted through legal precedent rather than law. But then you don't see them moving to codify abortion rights. They know what they're doing. So they had all the time in the world to remove them if people from those states cared about this when they voted. The problem isn't that the gatekeepers suddenly have a conservative majority, the problem is that you needed gatekeepers in the first place to stop 20-ish states from their theocratic tendencies. I have to agree with Nyxisto that this isn't a democracy issue, moderate Republicans would obliterate the religious zealots in primaries in those states if reality matched what is being said here. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2605 Posts
On July 01 2022 20:52 NewSunshine wrote: "Returning an issue to the states" when you know both that several states will absolutely outlaw that particular right, and that losing the right is something very few people support, doesn't look very democratic to me. It's a handful of people appointed by someone who lost a popular vote, handing an unpopular power to people who would force that outcome on everyone. Hell, several states banned abortion automatically because of trigger laws that have been in place for decades! They didn't flood your house, they just took the ceiling away right as the hurricane arrived. It's the main mechanism by which the Right rationalizes stripping women's rights. They attempt to reframe it as a problem with procedure and process, that it's inappropriate for the right to abortion to be granted through legal precedent rather than law. But then you don't see them moving to codify abortion rights. They know what they're doing. Don't forget that said state legislators were elected by the people in their state. Looks like the people there got what they voted for. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On July 01 2022 22:13 gobbledydook wrote: Don't forget that said state legislators were elected by the people in their state. Looks like the people there got what they voted for. Ostensibly. That's debatable. But also: On July 01 2022 22:05 NewSunshine wrote: The problem isn't even that Roe wasn't fully codified into federal law. The Supreme Court is leveraging all of its authority and overruling constitutional amendments and federal law now. Even if Roe was made into federal law, they would have taken cases on it and declared it unconstitutional regardless. They didn't need a reason. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11630 Posts
On July 01 2022 22:05 NewSunshine wrote: The problem isn't even that Roe wasn't fully codified into federal law. The Supreme Court is leveraging all of its authority and overruling constitutional amendments and federal law now. Even if Roe was made into federal law, they would have taken cases on it and declared it unconstitutional regardless. They didn't need a reason. True. The core problem is that an absurdly large amount of people in the US are fanatic zealots, at least okay with fascism, and don't really live in a fact-based reality. The fact alone that young earth creationism is a thing is prove of a massive problem. The secondary problem is that the system in the US enables that large minority of crazy zealots to rule as if they were the majority. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4862 Posts
On July 01 2022 14:39 Nyxisto wrote: On policy I think most of these developments are shitty but I honestly find the argument confused that the court is acting undemocratically. Most of these recent decisions seem to follow the logic of returning powers back to state legislatives and that is if anything a democratic move. Same with the EPA case. We complain about congress not doing its job ans then complain when have to do their job. But these are Democrats, they spent so many decades used to thr courts slowly going their way that now that it's tilted the other way it's illegitimate. "Democracy" = things I like, "fascism" = things I don't like. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On July 01 2022 22:40 Introvert wrote: Same with the EPA case. We complain about congress not doing its job ans then complain when have to do their job. But these are Democrats, they spent so many decades used to thr courts slowly going their way that now that it's tilted the other way it's illegitimate. "Democracy" = things I like, "fascism" = things I don't like. The problem is not that Republicans are being called out as theocratic fascists, the problem is that they're being theocratic fascists. If you don't like the label, don't fit the mold. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3250 Posts
Republicans are, right now, trying to work out regulatory schemes where they can make sure the government finds out whenever someone gets pregnant so they can stop them from leaving the state, try to prosecute them for stuff they do in other states, etc. Many of these bills also have provisions (I’d say “obviously unconstitutional” provisions but I don’t think that’s a given anymore) to prevent people from spreading information about how to get abortions, transporting them across the border to get abortions, etc. If you really think the only reason I’d call that creepy and authoritarian is because I’m pro-choice, you have a strong tolerance for tyranny. | ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2605 Posts
On July 01 2022 22:54 ChristianS wrote: I mean, that’s rhetorically clever because “fascism” is, in fact, a thing we don’t like, but that’s not what makes it fascism. I don’t care for Justin Bieber’s music but I wouldn’t call it fascism. Republicans are, right now, trying to work out regulatory schemes where they can make sure the government finds out whenever someone gets pregnant so they can stop them from leaving the state, try to prosecute them for stuff they do in other states, etc. Many of these bills also have provisions (I’d say “obviously unconstitutional” provisions but I don’t think that’s a given anymore) to prevent people from spreading information about how to get abortions, transporting them across the border to get abortions, etc. If you really think the only reason I’d call that creepy and authoritarian is because I’m pro-choice, you have a strong tolerance for tyranny. Is there any source of Republicans trying to stop pregnant people from leaving a state? I tried to search for it and couldn't find anything. | ||
| ||
